Skeptics may tell us, “Despite its complexities, the universe could be the product of mindless, unguided processes. Even if the chances are remote—one in billions of billions of billions—so what? We just happened to get lucky; if not, we wouldn’t be here talking about it!” This is a common, but faulty, assumption: If an explanation is remotely logically possible, then it’s just as reasonable as any other. In everyday life, however, we typically do—and should-prefer explanations that are more likely or probable, not whatever’s merely logically possible. Does the skeptic’s outlook do a better job of explaining things than the Jewish-Christian one? We’re wiser to accept a more robust, wider-ranging, less-contrived explanation—since it’s more likely to be true—than rely on it-could-have-happened-this-way scenarios and other thin reeds.
— Paul Copan, from Loving Wisdom, kindle location 1467